The following discussion took place due to the question Are the Nephilim created by the Seraphin angels? (sic.: it the male plural Hebrew ending is actually “im” not “in”) which was answered by a certain G Gregore (“Author and student of the Bible for decades”)
Hello,
There are those who believe the word “giants” used in Genesis 6: 4 refers to Nephilim – who are supposed to have been the off springs angels who are responsible for intermingling with humans to produce some sort of half human half angel Beings. But nowhere in the Bible is any evidence of angels having the ability to reproduce or have sex with a human female.
God word it truth – John 17:17
In speaking of the angels when it comes to marriage – which also involve the act of producing children, Jesus plainly points out that angels are not given in marriage (Matt. 22: 30). When God created the human pair of Adam and Eve, he told them to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28). Yet, if you look throughout the entire Bible, you do not see any place where angels are capable of reproducing themselves or having any ability to mingle with humans so as to produce demi-god or half human half angels.
Who were the Giants?
Carefully notice what Moses wrote in genesis 6:4: “There were giants in the earth in those days.” (those days mean that there were giants or men of great size living before the great flood had occurred at the time of Noah). The scripture goes on to say, “and also after that when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” If you have eyes to see, you will notice the scripture is telling you that the giants were not the progeny or descendants of the marriages – because they actually lived before the marriages occurred; this means that the descendants were not the giants but were the “mighty men, which were of old, men of renown” (Gen. 6:4). In other words, they were physical human beings and not angels. The sons of God are mortal men; an are called sons of God because by the fact that God created man in his image, men are called the sons of God; for example, Malachi 2;10 says, “Have we not all one father? hath not God created us? …”
The remains of these giants and mighty men have been found by geologists and archeologists. Just about all of us grew up hearing about cavemen or Neanderthals, and far from being some kind of sub-human – they were simply men of gigantic size who once lived on the earth. These archeological findings actually attest to the truth of the Bible.
(Just an illustration)
Satan, who is a deceiver and liar has deceived people to think this passage of the scripture is saying angels can co-habit with mortal women to produce children is a lie; no doubt, Satan hates the fact that God has given humans the ability to reproduce themselves, that he will seek to corrupt it with lies – influencing people to misinterpret the Bible.
Ken Ammi
It appears that you reject were the Bible evidences Angels having the ability to reproduce or have sex with a human female so as to conclude that “nowhere in the Bible is any evidence of angels having the ability to reproduce or have sex with a human female.”
Yet, Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angelos”).
Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.
The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”
https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B071NW4F4W/allbooks
You vaguely generically asserted, “Jesus plainly points out that angels are not given in marriage” but the verse you cited, “(Matt. 22: 30)” doesn’t say that.
You artificially inserted, “giants or men of great size” but whence did you get any such info?
If you have eyes to see, you will notice the scripture is telling you that the Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.
I’ve no idea to whom you’re referring by “The remains of these giants and mighty men have been found by geologists and archeologists.”
G Gregore
Hello, you quoted Job 38:7 using the reference to “son of God” as proof or evidence that it refers to angels; Of course it refers to angels: I do not disagree that this passage of the Bible refers to angels, but does this reference to sons of God mean they can reproduce – have sex? It does NOT. The reason the angels are called sons of God is because they are son of God by the fact that God created the angels; they are sons of God by creation. Hebrews 1:5 proves this when it says, :For unto which of the angels said he at anytime, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee ….” The angels are not called son: Jesus became the Son of God by his birth and resurrection – being conceived by the Spirit of God in the womb of Mary and was later changed from flesh to Spirit- becoming a literal Son of God. In respect to the angel, this kind of sonship is not promised to them; they are called sons of God by the fact that God created them; and they are not created to reproduce themselves.
Notice Genesis 6:2: “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair and they took them wives …” Now consider this: The word “sons” of God” is used in different ways in the Bible: First, if one has received and is led by the holy spirt of God (Romans 8: 14), then he is now a begotten son of God (I John 3: 1). The converted Christian is a begotten son of God.
Second: figuratively speaking, the Bible refers to all of mankind or natural human beings as sons of God; We are all the sons of God by creation – so says Malachi 2:10.
If you also read 1 Peter 3: 19,20, it speaks of angels being bound, imprisoned; When? The Bible says, “When once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing.” Notice it! Before the flood destroyed the land, while the ark was still under construction, the angels who are spirits, were already imprisoned, “in hell”- tartaroo – meaning they were not at liberty to co-habit with human women.
Fallen angels could not have sexual relation as some falsely believe in regard to Genesis 6 because you also see here in 1 Peter 3 that the angels were put in a place of restraint even before the flood of Noah’s day had occurred.
You quoted Matthew 22:30 saying, “You vaguely generically asserted, Jesus plainly points out that angels are not given in marriage” but the verse you cited, “(Matt. 22: 30)” doesn’t say that.
Jesus clearly made known that the angels do not marry; we know that God gave marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman from which the man and the woman is able to reproduce their own kind – through the means of sexual intercourse. But in relation to the angels, who do not marry, it is clear to see that Jesus was making it known that angels do not and are not capable of reproducing themselves; God has not give the angels such power; they cannot reproduce themselves or have sex with mortals.
People tend to overlook the fact that God has set forth or placed in motion the inexorable law that man can reproduce himself and angelic beings cannot do so. There is no place in the Bible where an angels of God has been shown to produce another angel; no such thing has even been mentioned in the Bible, and spirit beings that angels are, does not have the power to defy God’s law that says it is human that who have been given the power to reproduce after their kind and not angels intermingling with humans to reproduce some kind of half angel half human. With Satan and all his demons, has anyone ever seen a half human half angels walking around in this world? NO, YOU have not – because Satan and his demons cannot reproduce, but instead, try in every way to corrupt sex – by way of lust, pornography, sex outside of marriage – causing people to hurt one another by cheating on their spouse; Satan is envious that man has the ability to reproduce through sex.
Ken Ammi
Appreciate the elucidation.
You first noted that the Gen 6 “sons of God are mortal men” and now that in Job 38:7 “son of God’…it refers to angels” and then “angels are called sons of God” but then in Heb 1:5 “angels are not called son” and “Angel…are called sons of God”: so it’s no, yes, yes, no, yes-ish.
Now, that Angels “are not created to reproduce themselves” doesn’t mean that they can’t only that they weren’t supposed to.
When it comes to 1 Peter 3: 19-20 you asserted “angels who are spirits” but Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.
Also, you asserted, “while the ark was still under construction, the, were already imprisoned…they were not at liberty to co-habit with human women” but your chronology is off since Gen 6 states “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose” which could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children first started having children yet, it’s still clearly before “the ark was still under construction.”
I already pointed out, “You vaguely generically asserted, ‘Jesus plainly points out that angels are not given in marriage” but the verse you cited, “(Matt. 22: 30)” doesn’t say that” and in reply you merely doubled down on vaguely generically asserting “angels do not marry…angels, who do not marry” and then you jump to “angels do not and are not capable of reproducing themselves” and invented “God has not give the angels such power; they cannot reproduce themselves or have sex with mortals.”
I said “vaguely generically asserted” because it’s an all-encompassing statement but Jesus’ wasn’t. Rather, He qualified His statement by emphasizing that He was referring to, “angels IN HEAVEN” ergo, the loyal ones. Such is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having “left their first estate” as Jude put it.
See the point? You referred to all Angels but Jesus didn’t.
As for the “inexorable law” it’s not “that man can reproduce himself” but rather that kinds reproduce. Now, Angels are always described as looking like human males, we were created “a little lower” than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.”
So, it’s only after not applying Job 38:7 (et al.) nor Gen 6 nor Jude, nor 2 Peter 2 that you can then conclude “There is no place in the Bible where an angels of God has been shown to produce another angel; no such thing has even been mentioned in the Bible.”
As for, “has anyone ever seen a half human half angels walking around in this world?” yes, in pre-flood days. I don’t know what you mean by “With Satan and all his demons.”
G Gregore
YOU SAID: “You first noted that the Gen 6 “sons of God are mortal men” and now that in Job 38:7 “son of God’…it refers to angels” and then “angels are called sons of God” but then in Heb 1:5 “angels are not called son” and “Angel…are called sons of God”: so, it’s no, yes, yes, no, yes-ish.”
Yes, I noted angels are the sons of God spoken of in Genesis 38:7. I also noted that Genesis 6:4 reference to “sons of God is not to angels but to mortal men. For example, Luke 3:38 says, “Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Also, Hosea 1:10 speaks of mortal men or people as “… sons of the living God.”
Also, I simply pointed out that angels are sons of God by the fact that God created them, but that they can never become begotten sons of God as we human being can – as revealed in Hebrews 1:5; this becomes possible only by the atoning sacrifice of Christ; Through his sacrifice, Jesus became the Firstborn among many brethren (Romans 8:29); many brethren mean others are to follow Christ to be changed from flesh to spirit just as Christ was changed from flesh to Spirit, and to be born as sons of God by the resurrection. This is all I was saying; I was not saying angels are not called sons of God.
YOU SAID: “Now, that Angels “are not created to reproduce themselves” doesn’t mean that they can’t only that they weren’t supposed to.”
I stand by what was said, God has not created the angels to reproduce themselves; they cannot reproduce. In Matthew 22:28-30 you see the context is about having a wife in the resurrection; having a wife is a mean by which a man produces a child, and Jesus plainly reveals that in God’s kingdom there will be no need for a man and wife relationship, therefore, there will be no reproduction of a sexual nature – because in the resurrection, those who are born of God will be like the angels; this is so plain to see that God is saying angels do not reproduce; they do not have sex – much less to believe that they can have sexual intercourse with mortals. I have emphasized this before and you disagree, but you are free to do so.
I know your point is that this does not apply to all the angels –not the righteous angels in heaven, but to the sinning angels. Well, if the angels in heaven were not given in marriage, then would God not have applied this to all the angels when God created them? All the angels, including Lucifer – before they sinned, were not created to be given in marriage; they too were righteous angels at one point; The Bible said Lucifer was perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him. Did God, at a certain point in time – after the creation of the angels, decided they were not to be given in marriage or were they created not to marry? Based on what Jesus said, I choose to believe the latter- they were all created to not marry and reproduce; and cannot do so.
YOU SAID: “When it comes to 1 Peter 3: 19-20 you asserted “angels who are spirits” but Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.”
The Bible reveals that angels do appear in human form to God’s servants, but the bible reveals – especially, in the book of Ezekiel that they are not made in the image of God as we humans are; they are described as powerful ox and dragon like creatures even having wings (see Ezekiel 1). God said man was made in his image, and nowhere in the Bible does it say angels are made in the image of God.
YOU SAID: “Now, Angels are always described as looking like human males, we were created “a little lower” than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.”
No, we are not of the same basic kind; angels are spirit beings, we are mortal subject to death and decay; angels are more powerful and far wiser than we are. Satan and his demons are so powerful that mortal human have to place reliance on God to be able to resist them. Ephesians 6:12 makes known we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against spiritual wickedness in high places. We poor humans have not yet grasped the scope and power of Satan and his demons possess with their ability to deceive the human mind; it takes the power of God for us to stand; we are NOT same basic kind!
YOU SAID: “Also, you asserted, “while the ark was still under construction, the, were already imprisoned…they were not at liberty to co-habit with human women” but your chronology is off since Gen 6 states “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose” which could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children first started having children yet, it’s still clearly before “the ark was still under construction.”
You say this based on your belief that the “sons of God’ are fallen angels cohabiting with women.
If you examine the sixth chapter of Genesis more closely, you will notice that daughters were born when the human race began to multiply rapidly (verse 1). Why the mention of daughters only? What about the sons that must have been born? The answer is that the sons are spoken of but most readers overlook it.
If you go to the last chapter of Genesis 4: 25,26, it tells you that men began to call upon the name of the Lord. These men who called upon the name of the Lord were the sons of God – before the flood, who appeared religious or acted as if they were righteous men who served God but they were rebellious and unrepentant; this was why God said, … my Spirit would not always strive with man …” (Gen 6:3). What had they done that was evil in God’s sight? Notice it was the males who professed God, but with whom God would not continue to strive, were the ones who married the “daughters of men; it is they and not sinning angels that married the daughters of men. These men (sons of God) wanted to have their own way and married their neighbor’s daughters – who were most likely beautiful women who were also sinful and most likely led these men (sons of God) further away from God.
Again, Genesis 6:2 reveal the sons of God (mortal men) “took them wives of all which they choose.” God was not happy that these men were randomly marrying any women that they wanted to marry, and God then said, “… My spirit shall not always strive with man … (verse 3). Notice it was man (the sons of God) that God was displeased with.
God has set laws in motion that each produces after their own kind (Genesis 1). Two different Biblical kinds (human and angels) cannot gender sexually. This is one of the most thoroughly established laws of science. God did not make it possible for angels to reproduce with human beings.
Ken Ammi
Appreciate the detailed interaction, friend.
Indeed, “sons of God” has many usages so since Gen 6:4 distinguishes them from “daughters of men” so if the latter are “of men” then the former must not be.
You asserted, “God has not created the angels to reproduce themselves; they cannot reproduce” but that’s all that was: assertions and assertions that violate Jude correlating their sin to sexual sin and 2 Peter 2 placing their sin to pre-flood days besides that the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”
https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B071NW4F4W/allbooks
You can write commentary on Matthew 22:28-30 all you want but as long as you keep ignoring Jesus’ very specific qualified statement it will not assist you. In fact, you did it again when you wrote, “will be like the angels” so, again, you’re being generically vague but Jesus was being specific.
So, you just assert, “angels do not reproduce; they do not have sex” and as for, “much less to believe that they can have sexual intercourse with mortals” but that’s just an assertion, it’s an incomplete statement in fact.
Indeed, “angels in heaven were not given in marriage” but did you note the qualifying term “GIVEN” so when it comes to “would God not have applied this to all the angels when God created them?” yes, He never GAVE any of them in marriage which is why those who did so are considered sinners, they “left their first estate” in order to take it upon themselves to do so, “TOOK as their wives any THEY chose.”
As for, “All the angels, including Lucifer” well, he’s not an Angel, he’s a Cherub.
You then refer to, “Based on what Jesus” but keep in mind that you’re not basing it on what Jesus said, you’re ignoring what He said and are basing it on your misrepresentation of what He said via your vaguely generic paraphrase.
Just as with Satan, you made another category error since I very specifically noted, “Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology” but you went on to refers to Cherubim.
I’m unsure why you just ignore biblically verifiable facts and then just continue arguing. Again, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology ergo, it’s not accurate to merely assert, “angels are spirit beings.”
Also, since I noted, “Angels are always described as looking like human males, we were created ‘a little lower’ than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic ‘kind’” you ignore these facts and asserted “No, we are not of the same basic kind” based on your mistaken assertion that Angels are spirits.
That we are not the same point-by-point is a non-issue, there are humans who are “more powerful and far wiser than” other humans: we’re all still humans of the same kind.
As for, “against spiritual wickedness in high places” you seem to be equivocating on “spirit” vs. “spiritual” and besides, that’s likely a reference to demons (who are spirits) not Angels.
As for your chronological error when it came to, “your chronology is off since Gen 6” it’s too bad that you ignore that by punting to the goalpost moving, “You say this based on your belief that the ‘sons of God’ are fallen angels cohabiting with women.”
As for, “daughters only? What about the sons that must have been born?” well, it states, “When man began to multiply” (about which for some odd reason you inserted “rapidly”) and with the single exception of Adam (physically/biologically speaking) every single man in history has been a son.
So, if “men began to call upon the name of the Lord…appeared religious or acted as if they were righteous men who served God but they were rebellious and unrepentant” then we don’t know who the sons of God were, on that view.
So, for some unknown reason it was only strictly males, not one single female, who were pseudo-sons of God who married women, not one single man.
“sinning angels” explains why only exclusively males on one side of the equation and only exclusively female on the other: your view has that being accidental, I guess, and statistically virtually impossible.
As for, “married their neighbor’s daughters” I have no idea how you invented that nor how it matters nor what would possibly be wrong with it.
Now, as for “produces after their own kind” I’m not interested in having you ignore what I say and then go in circles as if I never even said it so, again, “Angels are always described as looking like human males, we were created ‘a little lower’ than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic ‘kind.’”
G Gregore
There is a scripture in Amos 3:3 which asks the question: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed? It is quite clear we are not in agreement; therefore, I say that even as you are free to believe what you will – even so do I have the freedom to do the same.
Ken Ammi
But we don’t agree because you’re teaching false things on the WORLD WIDE web, mind you, and you refuse correction.
G Gregore
I said it is quite clear that we are NOT in agreement.
Ken Ammi
I agreed quite clearly that we are NOT in agreement. But you ignored the other part.
That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.